2016 6th Grade Math Teaching Sample Video; Roy Matthewson

Congressman Dodge?

I believe I should run for public office. My wife does not agree, however. Neither does my bank account. But I do believe I would make a tremendously effective congressional leader.

The only problem I see with my candidacy is that I would do those things that I believe are in the best interests of my constituents and of the country writ large, rather than for my political career. Sadly, this will mean that as the whims of public opinion shift, I'll undoubtedly lose my job.

Still, I think I'll run for office someday. Maybe even someday soon if my wife lets me.

A Better Response to Events in Ukraine?

To me (and I acknowledge that I am no expert on foreign affairs) the US response to events in the Ukraine and Crimea seem to be completely wrong-headed. I'd love to hear what others think in response to this proposal.

Russia has direct political and strategic interest in the region. After all, it's only warm-water port, giving access to Mediterranean trade routes, is there. Having suffered from three tremendously damaging invasions onto its territory since 1812, the strategic defense ideal developed under the communist regime was to put buffer states between itself and potential invaders. Putin came of age while that was the dominant thought process.

As such, the US and European nations should have welcomed the Russian intervention in its sphere of influence as a means of protecting the interests of Ukraine and its own investment in Crimea. Once the situation had stabilized, with elections held in Ukraine on a new national government, the Russians would have been encouraged to withdraw. They could even have been given assurances that Nato nations would allow for a referendum on whether Crimea would stay with Ukraine, become independent, or go to Russia, but only after Russian troops returned to pre-crisis positions.

This sounds a little bit like the appeasement doctrine that allowed Hitler to take over Czechoslovakia, but I do not think it is. This faces realities in the region. Russia is just too strong for Ukraine to resist. The US is not going to go to war over Ukraine and Russia knows it. By proceeding in this way the force in Putin's moves would have been removed. His power and interests in the region would be acknowledged, but he would also need to adhere to the rights of nations and people in his region. And, this would put the processes of democracy, the processes we claim to value so highly, into the hands of the people on the scene.

But then, we could just be engaging in a continuation of the "Great Game" of European history that made lesser powers the pawns of others.

How to Grow the Church

The culture of evangelicalism currently dominates the discussion of Christian faith and action in the United States. This culture lies behind passage of laws like the one Arizona governor Jan Brewer and the Kansas Senate wisely vetoed or ignored. These laws were intended to legalize discrimination against same sex couples for religious reasons. 

The notion that religious liberty is at stake, which thereby makes such laws necessary, is absurd. No one is forcing anyone opposed to same sex marriage for religious reasons to marry someone of the same gender. No one is being forced to give up dearly held religious convictions. Instead, homosexual couples are simply asking businesses to provide services that are normally rendered to any heterosexual couple -- whether they were of the same faith background or not.

The tragedy is that adherents and defenders of evangelical culture who promulgate such laws fail to recognize the destination toward which their social issues are directing the Church. The trajectory is definitely down toward marginalism and irrelevance. Christians are seen as insensitive and hatefully discriminatory. As a result, individuals who were either never at home in this culture or no longer comfortable within its confines continue to move steadily away from the Church.

I believe there is a better way to do and be church. I believe it is possible to be faithful to the apostolic, orthodox center of Christianity in a way that will see the Kingdom of God come alive within individuals, families and communities. I believe this Kingdom life will be joyfully experienced and expressed in heterosexual and homosexual individuals, families and communities resulting in a vibrant future for the Church in North America. For this future to be realized, believers must discard the dominant cultural norms of evangelicalism and reclaim the gospel.

The norms that evangelicalism holds dear include a literarily and historically uninformed theory of the inspiration of scripture. This is the approach that claims everything written in scripture is fact, is exactly what the good Lord meant to tell us and is completely historically accurate. Yet the insistence that the story of creation in Genesis 1 must be seen as historically factual tells believers and non-believers that critical, scientific thinking is unwelcome in the church. This is tantamount to saying that to be or become a follower of Christ, you must shut off your mind and discard the quantifiable, verifiable insights into the world that scientists have discovered, such as a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality. People realize the insistence that they stop using their brains is nonsense and naturally assume all the rest of it must be nonsense as well.

If the church is to grow, this faulty approach to scripture must be set aside. Instead, people must be encouraged to approach the Bible on its own terms. It is a collection of stories and reflections from people doing their best to describe God’s interaction with them and the world God created, not a factual, historical description of how God created. Since the language of scripture is often metaphorical and poetic as well as historical, it must be allowed to speak as metaphor and poetry as well as history. Yes, it is language that expresses truths, but those truths do not preclude the possibility that humanity can discover truths through scientific discovery. Suddenly, a tremendous barrier that keeps people out of the Kingdom of God falls allowing lives to be changed by the Gospel. Suddenly the Church is able to grow.

Another norm that the dominant Christian culture stresses is the weekly worship meeting. Featuring music and lecture usually led by at least one religious professional, these events occur within the walls of a specified building at a set time each week. For most believers, attending this meeting is church. Bible studies, or group meetings at other times are ancillary to church, but they in themselves are not church. These secondary meetings serve the goal of increasing attendance at church. And it is believed that for the church to grow, it must have more highly polished elements resulting in a better show, which enables the congregation to more easily enter the presence of the holy.

In a recent blog post, Donald Miller spoke of his dissatisfaction with this form of church. He was roundly criticized by denizens of the dominant church culture as selfish, unbiblical, and as likely not having experienced “good” worship. What the criticism betrays is the belief that church is what takes place in the set meeting time and place where the professionals lead from the stage and the rest are entertained and consume as an audience.

I believe the type of community Miller describes is the Church; and I know I am not alone in this belief. Like me, these people no longer wish to strain against the binding strictures of “proper” belief based upon a “proper” reading of scripture in the “proper” format at the “proper” time. I would like to leave that behind. I would much rather hold to the apostolic faith in the resurrection and work with a growing community to understand the implications for this belief in our day-to-day actions. I would like to share the Good News with those around me, inviting them into a community of faith that values nuance, individuality, historical inquiry, scientific discovery and depth of thought.

As Miller points out, the problem is that there is no money in this model of church. How could I be a religious professional within this paradigm when I cannot pay for food, clothing, a warm bed and a roof over my head? I would undoubtedly need to support myself with a different job. 

Ever since we met, this is the model of church for which my wife has expressed an affinity. It is the model I now believe I will feel most comfortable with; and I believe it is a model that vast numbers of unbelievers would feel most comfortable with. I trust that God will continue to work in my spirit and guide me into this if it is where God wants me to move. The only thing I am certain of is that remaining within the thought patterns and practices of the dominant evangelical Christian culture no longer satisfies me. As I said before, I believe I am not alone.

I see the Church of near future composed of people whose lives are full to overflowing with faith, hope and love. These are people who move through the world bearing the fruit of the Spirit, sharing the Gospel story as it comes from the Bible and as it has been manifested in their own lives. These are people who are in the community of faith even though they do not meet together regularly in the manner most commonly seen today. These are counter-cultural people who are daily growing in grace and love, advocating for faithful, godly actions on behalf of the poor and oppressed, the widow and the orphan. This is the Church that I intend to be part of. This is the body of Christ growing in the world he redeemed through incarnation, death and resurrection.


Who else wants in?

On "Why I Am A Creationist"

            I find it embarrassing to be identified as a Christian. This is rather unfortunate, seeing as how I am a minister in a decidedly Christian church, which means part of my job is to advertise my faith to others in the hopes of creating more Christians.

            When Virginia Heffernan posted her reflection on Yahoo News, Why I Am A Creationist, I found that she had summarized the reason I find being a theist so embarrassing. Heffernan was careful to acknowledge that people might think she was stupid, which is good, because I found her rationale stupid.

            In the post, an otherwise intelligent woman concluded that living in a world where God exists feels better than living in a world without God. Rather than engaging in the intellectually arduous task of making sense of apparently contradictory truth claims, she simply chose to disregard one in favor of the other. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

            What continues to bother me about this position, one that is held by millions of Christians in the US, is that it is so illogical. It completely disregards the possibility that belief in a creative God might be consistent with discoveries fostered by following the scientific method. Heffernan is perfectly content to compartmentalize her life into sections that do not interact. In doing so she is able to enjoy the benefits of modern scientific discovery – in the form of technology – while completely dismissing anything else such inquiry might discover that explains the world.

            Heffernan is not the only person I know who dismisses the theory of evolution because it doesn’t mesh with her belief in a creator. She is, however, the first I’ve come across to state so baldly that she chooses to live this way because it is more comfortable than the alternative. She freely acknowledges that she is not interested in trying to make all of the pieces fit together.

            The source of the problem for people like Heffernan is that they all tend to read scripture scientifically. By this I mean that they believe that the Bible is not just theologically true, but factually true throughout. In other words, they believe the facts of the Gospel, that God raised Jesus from the dead. Since this is factually true, they expect the Hebrew Scriptures to be factually true as well. Therefore, when Genesis describes a six-day creation story, this must be the facts of how God created the world. As such, when creationists hear of discoveries that do not fit their preconceived understanding of the world, they cast them aside as Heffernan does. Quite frankly, it is easier. Unfortunately, it’s also stupid.

            Reading scripture in this way is stupid precisely because scripture itself does not claim such scientific precision. In his movie Religulous, Bill Maher talks with a Catholic scientist who points out how far removed the world of the scientific method is from the world of the Bible. To expect scientific reporting of the sort we are now accustomed to from the authors of scripture is quite simply senseless.

            Furthermore, individuals who accept the overwhelming evidence in favor of the big bang, et al, see how ludicrous a young earth understanding is. They assume that to be a Christian you must have to turn your brain off and, as a result, are not interested in what Christians might have to say. Yet it is the creator God who gave us minds that allow us to discover the means by which God created the ever-expanding universe. In the very act of shutting off our brains we deny God’s creative goodness to humanity.

            The laws of physics in their most advanced and fantastically intricate mechanics, which human beings are only beginning to understand, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Neither the big bang theory, nor the theory of evolution proves God does not exist. Such is beyond their capacity. Scientific discovery simply explains how things act and appear to be, but cannot explain why. “Why” is the purview of the psychologist, philosopher, or theologian.

            I am a minister precisely because I love the Triune God who has pursued me and has placed upon me a vocational call that I cannot shake. I want others to know the fullness of life available to all people as mediated and facilitated in the power of the Holy Spirit through the atonement of Christ. I just wish Christians would stop putting up so many barriers that keep people from coming to faith.

            The Church has generally done a disservice to people like Heffernan. Of course, to blame “The Church” for failure in this way is to suppose that it is monolithic and speaks with one voice on all topics. Even looking at one specific denomination, such as the ironically named United Methodist Church as it wrestles with issues such as homosexuality in its general conference should demonstrate how naïve this idea is. Still, The Church needs to do a better job of fostering the life of the mind, of scientific inquiry, and thoughtfulness.

Creationists Lack Faith

Insisting that the earth was created in seven literal days reflects a lack of faith and a desire to control God. This is not to say that young-Earthers  have no faith. Clearly they do. Their faith -- specifically, their beliefs -- are so strong that they limit the possibility of knowledge that can be accepted. Stated in another way, what a person believes limits what said individual can accept as knowledge. 

Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, claimed that people capable of comprehending the scientific realities of the world and discarding faith were "brights." The implication is that those who have faith are dim bulbs, and those who deny evolution are quite frankly burned out. Indeed, criticism of creationists generally stands on the notion that people who believe such things are stupid. 

A person's identity is tied up in his or her belief structure. If one's beliefs are based upon the historicity and factual veracity of the claims of the Bible, regardless of the genre of literature in question, then there is no room in one's mind for contradictory knowledge. Such contradictions are existential threats to one's entire identity and must therefore be resisted or thrown out. While many who hold to these beliefs may not be intellectual giants, they are not all stupid. 

What creationists fail to realize is how small and under their own control their God is. They define God by what they read in scripture and refuse to ask probing questions of the text, or to read one text against others. If they do read in this way, their beliefs predetermine the results. This means that God is only as big as the world revealed in the Bible. Ironically, this means that God is not actually to be seen in his creation unless what we discover fits neatly into the historical, factual confines of the creation stories. If those discoveries do not fit, they are quite simply dismissed as wrong.

But if God is bigger than the confines of scripture, what then? If God did not make clear through the Bible itself that there are vast areas of life and God's activity in it which are not defined there, how can we believe in him? If God did not actually take one week to create the world, can we actually trust that God raised Jesus from the dead? As an existential threat, this is huge. 

For this reason the doors of creationist churches are never opened very wide, at least not for very long. The group huddles close for protection against the threatening world outside, never realizing that the one who lives inside of them is greater and more powerful than the one who lives in the world, since he has conquered the world. If this is not evidence of a lack of faith in God, I don't know what is.

A Christian Frame On Gun Control

It is popular among gun control advocates to claim that the gun in the mind of the second amendment's authors was the muzzle-loaded musket. As such, this is the weapon citizens are constitutionally allowed to keep and bear within a well ordered militia. This is a particularly inane argument. At issue was not the type of weapon, but the use to which the weapons would be put.

The authors wanted to keep the size and cost of the military down so as to keep the populace as free of taxation as possible. This also provided people with protection from an overbearing government, which would otherwise hold a monopoly on military power. If the musket was the only gun in the minds of the authors of the amendment this was because it was the most technologically advanced weapon carried by soldiers the world over. There were also bayonets, swords, horses and artillery in those armies.

The citizen soldiers envisioned in the second amendment would have been similarly armed because they owned all of these weapons. The exception to this would be artillery, which was cost prohibitive for most individuals to possess. Cannon would be held by the militia in its armory. Because of this, they would have been the match of any army in the world.

The authors of the second amendment might be appalled by the size of our standing military and would probably advocate for a return to the militia model to decrease the size and cost of government. Undoubtedly, however, they would not advocate that the populace only be armed with muskets. The overwhelming firepower held by foreign nations, or even by our own government would quickly relegate the people to a state of submission and servitude. This would be completely unacceptable to men like Jefferson, Washington, and etc. As such, they would argue that individuals must be allowed to own modern firearms.

What the framers of the constitution and its amendments would undoubtedly decry are the heinous uses to which these weapons are put. They would also lament the lack of civil responsibility in our society. They believed the freedoms fought for and enshrined in the founding documents must be upheld by citizens serving the best interests of the nation. Their thought was that life and freedom within the United States must ultimately serve the perpetuation of those freedoms. Such an attitude of service seems to be missing, because we serve our individual needs and wants above all others.

The fundamental disagreement Christians should have with all of this is one of lordship. If Christ is Lord, our ultimate service must be to him, instead of the state, our families, or ourselves. Christian actions are to help the Body of Christ advance, irrespective of the needs of the state, or any other organization that claims our loyalty. It is from this perspective that a Christian should approach the question of gun ownership and control.